Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Starsector 0.97a is out! (02/02/24); New blog post: Simulator Enhancements (03/13/24)

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 12

Author Topic: Low Tech ship non viablility  (Read 16455 times)

Alex

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 23986
    • View Profile
Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
« Reply #75 on: May 18, 2020, 01:00:38 PM »

Some relevant changes from the (as yet non-public) patch notes for the next release:
Hammerhead:
   Rear turrets no longer capable of facing directly to the front
   Fixed slight alignment issue for left medium hardpoint, this is Very Important
Enforcer:
   Increased armor to 900 (was: 750)
   Increased hull to 6000 (was: 5000)
   Reduced shield flux/damage to 1 (was: 1.2)   

(And a moderate Assault Chaingun nerf, which in itself is an indirect Hammerhead nerf...)
Logged

Grievous69

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2975
    • View Profile
Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
« Reply #76 on: May 18, 2020, 01:09:27 PM »

Oh nice, I'm liking all the changes there. Glad to see Enforcer will be a real tank now :)

EDIT:
Quote
Fixed slight alignment issue for left medium hardpoint, this is Very Important
Hold on does this mean it won't be able to fire both hardpoints into the same spot anymore?
« Last Edit: May 18, 2020, 01:12:23 PM by Grievous69 »
Logged
Please don't take me too seriously.

Wyvern

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 3784
    • View Profile
Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
« Reply #77 on: May 18, 2020, 01:23:02 PM »

Oh, nice.  Nice simple changes to the Enforcer - let me go just edit those into my starsector data files...
Logged
Wyvern is 100% correct about the math.

Goumindong

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1886
    • View Profile
Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
« Reply #78 on: May 18, 2020, 01:54:22 PM »

Some relevant changes from the (as yet non-public) patch notes for the next release:
Hammerhead:
   Rear turrets no longer capable of facing directly to the front
   Fixed slight alignment issue for left medium hardpoint, this is Very Important
Enforcer:
   Increased armor to 900 (was: 750)
   Increased hull to 6000 (was: 5000)
   Reduced shield flux/damage to 1 (was: 1.2)   

(And a moderate Assault Chaingun nerf, which in itself is an indirect Hammerhead nerf...)

But there are patch notes! Half life 3 confirmed
Logged

SCC

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 4112
    • View Profile
Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
« Reply #79 on: May 18, 2020, 01:55:22 PM »

Now that is a brick of a destroyer. I didn't actually expect doubling down on armour. It will be enough to make weapons with less than a 100 hit strength ineffectual even when the armour has been stripped.

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12117
    • View Profile
Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
« Reply #80 on: May 18, 2020, 02:00:22 PM »

I am more interested in the shield power-up.  Maybe now I do not need to pump capacitors to the max and/or get Hardened Shields just so it can squeeze off a shot before incoming fire shuts it down.
Logged

Locklave

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 631
    • View Profile
Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
« Reply #81 on: May 18, 2020, 02:09:34 PM »

Oh nice, I'm liking all the changes there. Glad to see Enforcer will be a real tank now :)

EDIT:
Quote
Fixed slight alignment issue for left medium hardpoint, this is Very Important
Hold on does this mean it won't be able to fire both hardpoints into the same spot anymore?
That would be a rather noticeable nerf.
Logged

Alex

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 23986
    • View Profile
Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
« Reply #82 on: May 18, 2020, 02:10:58 PM »

EDIT:
Quote
Fixed slight alignment issue for left medium hardpoint, this is Very Important
Hold on does this mean it won't be able to fire both hardpoints into the same spot anymore?

(Nothing to worry about, just a 1-pixel-off alignment issue with where the hardpoint was located on the sprite.)
Logged

Wyvern

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 3784
    • View Profile
Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
« Reply #83 on: May 18, 2020, 02:14:39 PM »

Hammerhead:
   Rear turrets no longer capable of facing directly to the front

On further consideration, this change actually concerns me - I generally use those back two slots for point defense, and not having full PD coverage (or having to further sacrifice damage output by mounting PD in the front turrets) is a potentially serious issue for AI-controlled Hammerheads.  (The AI has no conception of "That missile is not actually a threat because I can just take it on shields", so it'll try to back off from, say, pilums, keeping its shield up the whole time and generally handling the attack poorly.)

As an alternative, I suggest swapping the rear two turrets to energy instead of hybrid, and keeping the firing arcs the same.
Logged
Wyvern is 100% correct about the math.

Igncom1

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1496
    • View Profile
Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
« Reply #84 on: May 18, 2020, 02:20:45 PM »

Hammerhead:
   Rear turrets no longer capable of facing directly to the front

On further consideration, this change actually concerns me - I generally use those back two slots for point defense, and not having full PD coverage (or having to further sacrifice damage output by mounting PD in the front turrets) is a potentially serious issue for AI-controlled Hammerheads.  (The AI has no conception of "That missile is not actually a threat because I can just take it on shields", so it'll try to back off from, say, pilums, keeping its shield up the whole time and generally handling the attack poorly.)

As an alternative, I suggest swapping the rear two turrets to energy instead of hybrid, and keeping the firing arcs the same.

I'd disagree with this. If the AI reacting to the missiles is such a problem, just mount forward facing PD. It's a fair trade off.
Logged
Sunders are the best ship in the game.

Thaago

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 7173
  • Harpoon Affectionado
    • View Profile
Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
« Reply #85 on: May 18, 2020, 02:35:00 PM »

I think the Enforcer changes look good - its a low powered brick, but now its brickiness is very bricky.

...

That sentence really got away from me huh.
Logged

Nick XR

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 712
    • View Profile
Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
« Reply #86 on: May 18, 2020, 02:39:34 PM »

Sounds like well reasoned changes!

@Thaago, that was an excellent detailed breakdown of the Enforcer's problems a few pages back. 

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12117
    • View Profile
Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
« Reply #87 on: May 18, 2020, 03:10:38 PM »

I would not want rear Hammerhead mounts changed to Energy.  That means I either need all four small mounts dedicated to beam PD (for Salamander defense) or get Extended Shields for full 360 shields.  The rear two mounts are Vulcans for anti-Salamander defense.  I think Thaago uses them for dual LGs on SO Hammerheads.

The only time when I care about rear mounts going forward is if I try HVD/Mauler/4x Tac Laser loadout.  If I do not use that loadout, I rely on the rear mounts for missile defense provided by Vulcans.
Logged

FooF

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1378
    • View Profile
Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
« Reply #88 on: May 18, 2020, 03:35:34 PM »

Yeah, I like the double-down on the armor/HP. The better shield efficiency will also indirectly help its flux profile, too. Those changes notwithstanding, I still don't foresee using Enforcers as "filler" (non-officer'd) ships in my fleet over say a Hammerhead or Sunder. The other two are just more versatile.

However, I'll adjust the stats in my current game and see how the Enforcer feels, especially with Heavy Armor and/or some skills. Maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised. :)
Logged

Eji1700

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 222
    • View Profile
Re: Low Tech ship non viablility
« Reply #89 on: May 18, 2020, 06:44:15 PM »

Some relevant changes from the (as yet non-public) patch notes for the next release:
Hammerhead:
   Rear turrets no longer capable of facing directly to the front
   Fixed slight alignment issue for left medium hardpoint, this is Very Important
Enforcer:
   Increased armor to 900 (was: 750)
   Increased hull to 6000 (was: 5000)
   Reduced shield flux/damage to 1 (was: 1.2)   

(And a moderate Assault Chaingun nerf, which in itself is an indirect Hammerhead nerf...)

Very glad to see this.

I don't know about you, but in my eyes the hammerhead is pretty close to being right on the mark for what it should be.  It's a ship that i'm never sad to have, has quite a few viable builds, and it does whatever job you're putting it to well, as long as it's one it was designed to do.  I'm glad to see you aren't kneecapping it and instead just focusing on the Chaingun build being too good, which does seem to mostly deal with the weapon itself.

So with that said, i've tried a couple of mostly low tech runs and I have a few spots that i've found trouble with:

1. It feels like the "point" of low tech is "easy to acquire/amass/field/upkeep" compared to the others. 

In theory. 

There's a lot of reasons to point to this (especially flavor) but the simple problem is that this just isn't a balance factor in practice. I've talked about it before, but acquiring a brand new/near brand new midline is trivially easy compared to any low tech ship, and it seems to hurt their niche a ton.  Why would i field condors when I can get drovers?  Sure i've found uses for them, but the "advantage" just doesn't feel like it.

I'm generally annoyed with how easy it is to get a paragon and upkeep given how insanely performant it is, but at least getting a fleet of them is going to probably take you into the end game, but really if you're running condor's at any point past the start it's probably because like me you're trying to do something in theme.

2. Trash units aren't worth it by design.

So while i might have condor woes, at least i can break them out, load them up with pirhanas + LRMs, and go pirate station hunting.  It's a nice little niche that I could use drovers for, but at least it's something they can do well, being the in game equivalent of a trebuchet.

In comparison, i've just stopped getting the hound and cerberus.  Maybe there's a way to make them work, but I'm pretty sure it's just not worth the effort.  Ironically low tech ships take a hell of a lot more care/effort to get off the ground, and not just because of the AI.

The way the game handles salvage/supplies/restoration/dmods really really hurts the idea of junker/low tech fleets in general.  While you might think that you can take 15 cheap and pristine cerberus and keep them running easier than 5 omens(or whatever high tech) you're basically wrong.  The cerb's will die over and over, getting worse and worse (while already starting off worse), and the cost to repair them is insane when you consider that. 

As is my constant torch, i'm really hoping there's some rework to hull salvaging and the economy that stems from it, because to me it's by far the biggest factor in making low tech just not worth it (and god willing i ever get some actual vacation i'm thinking a nice hobby programming practice project might just be modding it myself so i can put up or shut up on all of this)

3. There is no "value" trading.

Consider Mount and Blade(any of them), which has something of a similar problem.  If i managed to take my 30 dirty peasants and wipe out an army of 150 elite troops thanks to my brilliant tactics and unabashed difficulty dropping, I've done something cool.  But why?  The resources that limit me from having my own army of 150+ elite troops are basically a joke once you learn what you're doing, and they're not going to take as much effort to use, nor die as easily.  The only real use-case for that kind of skill is when you're in the early game and might get jumped by a larger army (which is often again because of a lack of skill as you should just make your army faster than larger ones). 

The one major payoff though is the ability to take an hold castles (in theory, depending on the game) with fewer troops and  troop losses, which since getting more troops and training them is the only real resource by mid game, is nice.

There is basically 0 equivalent in star sector.  Managing to line up and outfit a buffalo 2 squad to take out a cruiser is SO much more satisfying that watching a paragon autopilot through an army, and yet there's really no reward or encouragement for it.  Maybe that example is extreme, but if you throw in operation costs and the like (and time spent outfitting bufflo 4404 from your replacement pool), it's just so so much easier to run high tech/midline stuff instead, and it's a shame because some of the most interesting gameplay is had with optimizing the less powerful hulls.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 12